# Jodharam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Firozabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 102
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-07
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1295 of 2022
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jodharam-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-firozabad-ors-48697
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act , 1953 - Section 48 - Revision-
Allotment
of
chak
proceedings
-
Comparative hardship - revisional court is
required to examine the comparative
hardship of both parties in the allotment
of chak proceedings, and as the last court
of fact, it should do so with the utmost
care and caution - Natural Justice -
decision arrived at by any authority
without giving any reason is a totally
arbitrary
decision
-
one
of
the
requirements of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made - Held -
revision u/s 48 was allowed by the D.D.C.
through a cryptic order without giving any
reason, which is not in line with the
principles of natural justice - comparative
hardship of the parties has not been
considered, and the revision has been
allowed in a cursory manner - Revisional
court order quashed (Para 8)

Allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the declaratory suit filed under Section 144
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

9. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances, the interest of justice will be
served if proceeding of the suit is expedited
and parties to the suit is restrained from
creating any third party interest on the
property nor nature and character of the
property be changed so that the property be
remained intact during pendency of the suit.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed, the impugned revisional order dated
2.3.2022 passed by respondent no.1 i.e.
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and
order dated 18.9.2020 passed by respondent
no.2 i.e. Additional Commissioner III, Meerut
Region, Meerut are set aside and direction is
issued to the trial Court to decide the Suit
No.03321 of 2019 expeditiously preferably
within a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
before him without granting unnecessary
adjournment to the parties and till the
disposal of the suit, parties to the suit will not
create any third party interest in respect of the
property in dispute nor change the nature and
character of the property in dispute.

11. No orders as to the costs.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 102
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 1295 of 2022

Jodharam ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Firozabad & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Chandra Solanki

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Akhilendra Yadav, Sri Raj Kamal
Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act , 1953 - Section 48 - Revision-
Allotment
of
chak
proceedings
-
Comparative hardship - revisional court is
required to examine the comparative
hardship of both parties in the allotment
of chak proceedings, and as the last court
of fact, it should do so with the utmost
care and caution - Natural Justice -
decision arrived at by any authority
without giving any reason is a totally
arbitrary
decision
-
one
of
the
requirements of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made - Held -
revision u/s 48 was allowed by the D.D.C.
through a cryptic order without giving any
reason, which is not in line with the
principles of natural justice - comparative
hardship of the parties has not been
considered, and the revision has been
allowed in a cursory manner - Revisional
court order quashed (Para 8)

Allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Mahabeer
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Jaunpur & ors., reported in
2005(99) R.D. page 65

2. Rajendra Singh & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors., reported in 2005(99) R.D.
46

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Chandra Solanki,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3
& 5 and Sri Raj Kamal Singh holding brief
of Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel
for respondent no. 4. With the consent of
8 All. Jodharam Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Firozabad Ors.
103
the learned counsel for the parties, writ
petition is being disposed of finally at the
admission stage.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner is chak holder no. 114 and
respondent no. 4 is chak holder no. 54.
Original holdings of petitioner are plot nos.
193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 1999, 200,
201, 202 total area 0.276 hectare and the
petitioner was proposed chak by Asstt.
Consolidation Officer on plot nos. 195,
197, 201, 202 total area 0.257 hectare
which was according to the Act and Rules
framed for allotment of chak. Against the
proposal of Asstt. Consolidation Officer,
respondent no. 4 filed belated chak
objection which was decided in her favour
and chak of the petitioner was disturbed
without giving opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner, the chak which was allotted
to the petitioner was on the bank of the
river and was also 'uran', accordingly,
petitioner
challenged
the
order
of
Consolidation Officer dated 23.6.2021
before the Settlement Officer Consolidation
in appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act with the
prayer to set aside the order dated
23.6.2021 and stage of Asstt. Consolidation
Officer be maintained, in appeal prayer for
condonation of delay was also made,
accordingly,
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation after condoning the delay in
filing appeal, allowed the appeal on merit
setting aside the order dated 23.6.2021 and
the stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer
was maintained. Against the Appellate
order dated 22.10.2021, Revision under
Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act was filed by respondent no. 4
and the Revisional Court by impugned
order dated 31.3.2022 allowed the revision
filed by respondent no. 4 by giving reason
that demand of respondent no. 4 appears to
be correct, hence, this writ petition on
behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that proposal made in favour of
petitioner by Asstt. Consolidation Officer
was on his original holding but the same
was illegally set aside by Consolidation
Officer while deciding the objection, the
order of Consolidation Officer was rightly
set aside in appeal and the stage of Asstt.
Consolidation Officer was maintained but
the revisional court finally allowed the
revision filed by the respondent no. 4 by a
cryptic order saying only that demand of
respondent no. 4 appears to be correct but
there is no consideration of the petitioner's
case, no reason has been assigned in
revisional order and there is no proper
compliance of Section 48 of the U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
by
revisional
court,
hence,
impugned
revisional order be set aside and order of
appellate ourt dated 22.10.2021 be restored.

4. For the appreciations of the
argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner, perusal of Section 48 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act will be
necessary.

5.

Section
48
of
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as
follows :

"48. Revision and reference. -
(1) The Director of Consolidation may call
for and examine the record of any case
decided or proceedings taken by any
subordinate authority for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings; or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order [other
than an interlocutory order] passed by such
authority in the case or p0roceedings, may,
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after allowing the parties concerned an
opportunity of being heard, make such
order in the case or proceedings as he
thinks fit.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1)
may be exercised by the Director of
Consolidation also on a reference under
sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority sub-ordinate to
the Director of Consolidation may, after
allowing
the
parties
concerned
an
opportunity of being heard, refer the record
of any case or proceedings to the Director
of Consolidation for action under subsection (1).

[Explanation. - (1) For the
purposes of this Section, Settlement
Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation
Officers,
Assistant
Consolidation
Officers,
Consolidator
and
Consolidation
Lekhpals
shall
be
subordinate
to
the
Director
of
Consolidation.]

Explanation (2) - For the
purposes of this section the expression
'interlocutory order' in relation to a case
or
proceeding,
means
such
order
deciding any matter arising in such case
or proceeding or collateral thereto as
does not have the effect to finally
disposing

[Explanation (3) - The power
under this section to examine the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order includes the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, recorded
by any subordinate authority, and also
includes the power to reappreciate any
oral or documentary evidence.]"

6. On the other hand, counsel for the
respondent no. 4 submitted that both parties
are co-sharers and they had been adjusted
as far as possible as provided under Section
19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, as such, no interference is required in
the matter and the petition is liable to be
dismissed.

7. Considered the submissions of the
counsel for the parties.

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that both the parties are co-sharers. The
revision under Section 48 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act has been
allowed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation by passing a cryptic order,
without giving any reason in support
thereof. The comparative hardship of the
parties have not been considered and the
revision has been allowed in the cursory
manner. Since the revisional court is the
last court of fact as such, revisional court
should examine the matter with most care
and
caution.
On
the
question
of
comparative hardship, this Court in the case
of Mahabeer vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
Jaunpur
&
others,
reported in 2005(99) R.D. page 65 has held
that revisional court should examine the
comparative hardship of both parties in the
allotment of chak proceedings.

9. In the present case, Deputy
Director of Consolidation has failed to
record reason while allowing the revision
of respondent no. 4. Comparative hardship
of both parties have not been considered at
all which is necessary in the allotment
proceeding as revisional court is the last
court of fact and is exercising jurisdiction
under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act.

10. Law is settled that a decision
arrived at by any authority without giving
any reason is a totally arbitrary decision.
This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh
&
others
vs.
Deputy
Director
of
8 All. Prabhakar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
105
Consolidation & others, reported in
2005(99) R.D. 46 has held that one of the
requirements of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made, in other
words, a speaking out.

11. In view of above, the Court is of
the opinion that the impugned order of the
revisional court is not liable to be sustained
and the same is hereby set aside.

12. The matter is remanded back to
the Deputy Director of Consolidation to
decide the revision afresh, after affording
opportunity of hearing to both the parties,
expeditiously preferably within a period of
three months from the date of production of
a certified copy of this order before him.

13. For a period of three months from
today or till decision of the revision by the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
whichever is earlier, status-quo with respect
to possession be maintained by the parties
on the spot.

14. The writ petition stands allowed
to the aforesaid extent.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 105
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 1426 of 2022

Prabhakar Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sunil Kumar

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act,1953 - Sections 4 & 6 - Cancellation of
notification u/s 4 - Effect - Village in
question

came
under
operation
of
Consolidation
through
notification
dt.
05.05.1972 u/s 4 of U.P.C.H. Act - ACO
passed an order for recording the name of
petitioner's father on the basis of Saledeed - Notification u/s 6 (1) of U.P.C.H.
Act in respect to village took place on
07.06.2016 by which notification u/s 4
issued / published on 5.5.1972 was
cancelled - G.O. dated 12.12.2014 was
issued to the effect that orders which
have attained finality before notification
u/s 6(1) took place, the same must be
recorded / implemented in the revenue
records - Authorities did not recorded the
name of the petitioner's father name -
Held
-
final
orders
passed
before
publication of notification u/s 6 (1) of
U.P.C.H. Act are to be incorporated /
implemented in the revenue records as
provided u/s 6 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act -
Rule 109A do not apply as Rule 109 A of
U.P.C.H. Rules will apply for the cases
covered under Section 52 (2) of U.P.C.H.
Act. (Para 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Deo & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. dt
29.9.2021 Writ- B No.1895 of 2021

2. Desh Raj & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. dt
8.10.2021 Writ- B No.1719 of 2021

3. Roshan Vs St. of U.P. & ors. dt 05.07.2022
Writ-B No.1446 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
standing counsel for the State and Mr. Sunil